"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...
"Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA" wrote in
message ...
Dear Roy, Richard, Art and other readers,

I had a look at that thread (for other readers' convenience included at
the
bottom of this message).
Although it is not immediately answering my question whether inverted
groundplane verticals present fewer losses than normal verticals, it
contains some
interesting observations. Again for the sake of the other readers, I
took
the liberty to rephrase and summarise these in terms that are more
common in
antenna literatu

Why are you calling them "inverted ground planes"? To me , an inverted
ground plane would be one that is standing on it's end, with the
radials on top.
It's just a ground plane. Period. A ground plane is any vertical that
uses elevated radials to supply the lower part of the antenna. "Not to
be confused with decoupling radials." Adding decoupling radials to a
half wave that is elevated, does not turn it into a "ground plane".
It's still an elevated 1/2 wave with a decoupling section. A ground
mount vertical, is well, a ground mount vertical.

Hello Mark,

For all clarity, when I say inverted groundplane, I really do mean a quarter
wave vertical fed at the top, with radials at the top!


--

73 de Serge ON4BAA - HB9DWU
http://salsawaves.com/propagation/